The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: Noinden

I agree, like I said, this thread is a perfect example, hope the OP takes the time, because for some of us it isn't an us and them thing.

a reply to: Barcs

I alway end up writing Looong replies to you Barcs but you do raise some interesting points although you always seem to misinterpret what I say dammit. I will try to stay brief.

I understand this is a semantic thing, but one that really changes the meaning of things unless it has been defined beforehand.

Yes, when I refer to scientists I am generally referencing a group of individuals who work in the profession of scientific study. A group which has a hierarchical structure, much like most human systems, I should, for clarities sake also make a distinction between different kinds of scientist,regardless of fields of study.

To keep things simple I will break that down into three categories

• Theoretical scientists
• Research scientists
• Application scientists

I have seen it broken down to a dozen of so different areas such as educational, government, exploratory the list can get quite long.

It is very intuitive to see how a theoretical scientist can set a research scientist off to prove or disprove hypothesis and once settled pass the knowledge to an applied scientist who make thing out of that knowledge. Over simplistic? Yes I know.

So collectively they are all scientists who follow a rigorous set of procedures to observe, measure and record, manipulate( sorry! Freudian slip) experiment, examine, discover the cause and affect of an observation and then formulate and test any conclusions to arrive at a hypothesis. forgive me if I have forgotten anything.

Now I will over generalise for the sake of giving others people a reason to criticise me, which they usually do anyway so hey! So this will help, and you will have no misunderstand over what I am referring to when I use the term 'scientists'.

The theoretical scientists, geniuses, deep thinkers, a rare blend of causal and mental thinkers, generally very nice chaps or chappes’s slightly eccentric quite often as blind as bats. (in a physical sense).
Desired character traits, dreamers with outstanding mathematical skills, hygiene.

Research scientists, hard working, underpaid, idealistic(sometimes) drinkers, who can blame them. have a proclivity to torture small fury animals, (all in the name of science of course.) quite often unmarried or divorced due to long hours in lab.
Desired character traits, obsessive behaviour,argumentative,inquisitive, intelligent.

Application scientist, hipster, overpaid, overconfident, easily bought, loves science but doesn’t like doing it. Enjoys travel, fast girls fast cars easily bought (oh, I already said that) have aspirations of becoming millionaires
Desired character traits. Pushy, good at problem solving, good people manipulation skills, high self esteem Ph.D is useful.

Yes that roughly it, All people my friend, all sorts of people, and I don’t have a problem with any of them, well maybe the hipsters.

The scientific method is good, it’s well thought out precise thorough, could do with tweaking but generally pretty efficient.

So lets get down to the nitty gritty and talk about hierarchies. At the very top of every field or professions even plumbers. There is the governing body. The interface between Government or Industry or corporation. Down to a handful of people really. The people who do business representing science.

It is at this point that things appear to go seriously askew. Final conclusions seem to defy the logic of the research and deals are made. It is the twilight zone where strange inexplicable things happen. it is that guy right at the top standing on one foot at the very apex of the pyramid that totally,totally pi$$es me off. It is he, that I refer to when I say science.

Please don’t misinterpret that I have a problem with scientists because I don’t I have the utmost respect for what they do. The more I think about it the more I see where my anger lies which is in how we are all manipulated by political decisions which would appear to be made by people who have the least interest in humanities welfare.

It is pure evil that take the hard work, good intentions,the aspirations the blood sweat and tears of ordinary people and turn it into something dark and malignant. If you sense anger in me, then that is where it stems from.

The infographic I posted pretty much sums up most of the technologies I am concerned about.

I don’t think atomic energy is beneficial to mankind in the long term, the technology or perhaps infrastructure is too precarious (Fukushima) is too unstable too dangerous and requires a commitment from our seed far, far into the future. I don’t think they will thank us for that.

I don’t have a problem with any of the guys on here either, and I used the term God hating heathens as a term of endearment and I am quite shocked that anybody took offence

I do defend religious folk, I can’t stop myself. It is one thing I know for a fact that atheists don’t have that believers do and that is the very belief in God itself, and the comfort that brings to people.

You can look at it as a crutch a false belief a delusion or whatever you would like to call it, but to a believer it is a precious gift and for some people the only thing that makes their lives bearable. I don’t think anybody has a right to take that away from them or try to convince them otherwise. So you see an attack on evolution theory is generally a defence of someones foundation of life itself. So my atheist friends how about displaying the compassion and tolerance that you proclaim you have without having to believe in a God and demonstrate the milk of human kindness.

Tolerance and compassion goes a long way to raise the humans vibration and I just wish their where a little more of it.

Sorry barcs, tripped over and found myself on a soapbox for a moment.

Peace my friend.

a reply to: kennyb72

Where are you basing these sterotypes from? No I am curious, because... they are cliche, caricatures, but you got these wacky ideas from somewhere. I am pretty sure you do not mix with many actual scientist. Which is ok, but ummm no. Those are not how one breaks down types of scientists. We are all human, and thus much more varied.

a reply to: Noinden

When exactly was it you had your humour removal operation Noinden I am sure it must have been very painful and perhaps explains why you take some things too seriously.

Of course it is caricatured, although I have worked with scientists for many years on defence projects in the area of circuit design for missile systems. I do have individual scientists in mind for each of my examples though.

a reply to: kennyb72

Why do you dislike scientists so much? Its a rhetorical question What this has to do with the topic is an enigma

Why is this thread still going on? It shouldn't have even started at all.

Abiogenesis and theory of evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Please end and trash this thread.

a reply to: kennyb72

Naturalnews they have been shown to EDIT papers/reports to push their own agenda then of course they sell alternative products/medicines via their own shop yet they have this disclaimer in small print.

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.

So they push alternatives but make that statement above

a reply to: Noinden

What can I say to convince you that I do not hate scientists or anybody for that matter, hate is a very strong word.

I get frustrated with folk sometimes but that's about the worst sensation I feel. I confess to being a little mischievous at times and enjoy engaging in a scuffle.

Do you sense negative energies Noinden? I know you have a spiritual aspect to you and just wondered if you are sensitive to peoples feelings. Can you feel it for instance, when you make a cutting remark, whether that could alter another persons mood or sense of self worth.

The interwebs is a strange and unique place from that perspective, although I can sort of see the comparison to road rage where the impersonality of not being in the presence of another person seems to allow some people to behave badly. Not aimed at you mind you.

How's this for a rationalisation, whatever we say on a thread about evolution is on topic because in some very small way we are living evolution as we speak. I feel I evolve the tiniest bit each time I communicate with a different person because each time we take on a new perspective we grow from it. Which can only be a good thing.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Hi wmd_2008, regardless of their credentials, the points they raise mirror my own concerns. I never take on other peoples opinions unless I fully agree with them.

originally posted by: kennyb72
So you see an attack on evolution theory is generally a defence of someones foundation of life itself. So my atheist friends how about displaying the compassion and tolerance that you proclaim you have without having to believe in a God and demonstrate the milk of human kindness.

I have impression that you don't have idea what we are against, or who is attacking whom and for what reason. Please watch this interview and tell me would you as example of kindness allow your kids (grand kids) get education where Bible story is an possible version of how world and life on it started??



I really don't care who believes in what, it really is not my interest, but forcing my children and other children to learn their voodoo science as science... that is not good thing, and as Dr. Tyson in previous video said, leads us to place where Islam found itself almost thousands years ago - in denial of science that ultimately lead to downfall of science and discoveries in Islam world.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Hello Superfrog, I was about halfway through a page to discuss our last post we exchanged and I realised that even with my creative definitions of evolution I can’t really get away with being off topic much longer and if I am absolutely honest I do find evolution theory rather boring.

I will leave it at that, other than say yes I did read the book 2001 a Space Odyssey, which is a bit of a pain having mentioned it because my head is now filled with daaa daaa daaa………dadaaaa bum bum bum. bum don’t you hate that. Anyway great book but did’t translate quite so well to film.

A very thoughtful point you raised. Was it human aggression that got us to where we are today. When I look around me or watch the news the answer would have to be Yes, I think so. It’s served its purpose now and I just wished it would go away.

Anyway catch up with you on a distant galaxy far away my friend, or a different thread on a different day of course



It appears out posts crossed, as I posted before I noticed your last one. I will take a look

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Abiogenesis and theory of evolution have nothing to do with each other.

But as one poster that believes in evolution said, abiogenesis had a evolutionary process happening just the same, play scientific semantical jargon 24/7, and it doesn't change that.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Abiogenesis and theory of evolution have nothing to do with each other.

But as one poster that believes in evolution said, abiogenesis had a evolutionary process happening just the same, play scientific semantical jargon 24/7, and it doesn't change that.

Everything changes over time, everything....

If we to use your broken and overly simplistic definition then literally everything ever is/has an evolutionary process....but what's the point in being accurate or technical right?

a reply to: Prezbo369

The point is simple, abiogenesis went from nothing to form up the building blocks that lead to a biological molecule, apparently that is where abiogenesis "technically" ends and evolution begins. Yet it is a continuation of the processes that already started, and yes you can scientifically class them separately, but life going from nothing to a trillion celled animal doesn't care, it just is.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Prezbo369

The point is simple, abiogenesis went from nothing to form up the building blocks that lead to a biological molecule, apparently that is where abiogenesis "technically" ends and evolution begins. Yet it is a continuation of the processes that already started, and yes you can scientifically class them separately, but life going from nothing to a trillion celled animal doesn't care, it just is.

'Life' isn't an individual agent, so no it doesn't have any such desires........and no the processes in the theory of evolution (natural selection etc) have not been shown to form the first building blocks of life....

I know your worldview is based on a whim and a prayer where anyone's random musings are as valid as the next peons, but the cold hard reality is that the world/universe is simply not the warm and cuddly realm specially built just for special little you.......

a reply to: Prezbo369

Adaptation & mutation facets of evolution, would have happened within the abiogenesis development, it's really interesting that what people believe about evolution, they don't want to believe about abiogenesis, if you 100% believe in it so much why the idealogical difference, it's very strange.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I have impression that you don't have idea what we are against, or who is attacking whom and for what reason. Please watch this interview and tell me would you as example of kindness allow your kids (grand kids) get education where Bible story is an possible version of how world and life on it started??

I didn’t think I could put up with listening to Dawkins for over an hour but I must confess I rather enjoyed it.

I guess evolutionists feel that there was some kind of a victory when he appeared to win the argument on evidence for macro evolution, when really I couldn’t help but think 'is that all you’ve got'?

In fact for the most part, Dawkins appeared to be very uncomfortable. I couldn’t help comparing the two people just as human beings where Wendy Wright was very open although a little nervous at times but Dawkins came across as a total slime ball.

Everybody knows he is a confirmed atheist, and yet his conversation was oozing in platitudes as he was saying things like doesn’t this glorify God, or don't you think God would; and other references to a being, he absolutely does not believe in. Very condescending and patronising and I confess I find it very difficult to warm to him. The evidence he smuggly kept raising in my view was this assertions that these hominid types where evidence of macro-evolution, but how can that be as they where all hominids, his description of the jaw bone changing as if it was some kind of a game changer, when it could have been different iterations of another species they where examining. I just find that kind of evidence very hard to accept.

I still can’t buy it. In fact I would go as far as to say I have seen better performances on this thread than his unconvincing agenda driven effort.

Looking at the question just from the perspective of DNA from the physicalist view point of evolution. By just not even considering there could be a creationist explanation, we could only arrive at one conclusion. Why genetically we see similarity between the human species and apes or chimpanzees and how we appear to have X percent similarity with this or that species and why a family trees can be observed.

I can’t help but comment how DNA would appear to be identical to how a designer would have gone about achieving the same thing. Identical to the evidence presented by evolution theory but more efficiently. He used the superlatives elegant and beautiful, but of course that progression of fossils would apply equally to a designed organism intelligently designed.

I am not a computer programmer, but I am familiar with the concept of object oriented programming. If we just consider intelligent design and compare for instance how an object oriented computer programmer would, for efficiencies sake start of with a common piece of code and call that first instance 'the organism module'.

He would then modify the code in a hierarchical fashion and using the organism module as the starting point, he would create his reptile module, his primate module his canine module his cat module and so on.

From there, make small modification to create primate module 1 primate module 2 just fine tuning things slightly to perfect his goal.

Now that he has a tried and tested primate model that is robust and suitable for its environment he's probably decide that for his alpha species could be based on the primate code with a few adjustments to create the homonid module.

After observing any inefficiencies such as standing more erect and an opposable thumb tweek the jaw adjust the chin etc, he could arrive at the perfect biological life form suitable for his purpose.

And wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that various models would be created to see which was more capable 'given a degree of self programming' to sit back and wait to see which ultimately was the best design for its environment.

My question is, how would this explanation for a created biological entity appear any different to what is observed by science in support of evolution.

You probably are not aware that I would call my beliefs esoteric Superfrog,and without going into a long explanation I will say that what I understand from a many dimensions of reality perspective. The way that evolution appears to be progressive change over time also fits my understanding exactly as a valid explanation for the human form but even more so because with the esoteric explanation there are no gaps in understanding.

So for me it still comes down to the question, can you or can you not accept the possibility, there is a sentient life beyond our physical senses that can design organisms for our spiritual bodies to reside, tailored to suit our needs during our brief journey to the physical plane.

I am not even suggesting the source of everything to be our designer, but intelligent entities that we all metamorphosis into when we finally break the cycle of rebirth, through the evolution or expansion of our consciousness.

After great deliberation I can honestly say from my perspective that the esoteric explanation provides more answers than evolution theory.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Prezbo369
Adaptation & mutation facets of evolution, would have happened within the abiogenesis development

There's no reason to presuppose either process is involved in abiogenesis, please explain why you made such a claim and how that claim wasn't created on a whim...

it's really interesting that what people believe about evolution, they don't want to believe about abiogenesis, if you 100% believe in it so much why the idealogical difference, it's very strange.

Such things can be believed for very good reasons, whereas you believe things purely because you want them to be true........you want to insert your worldview and then shape everything else to fit it.....the classic creationist delusional approach to the natural world.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Prezbo369

The point is simple, abiogenesis went from nothing to form up the building blocks that lead to a biological molecule, apparently that is where abiogenesis "technically" ends and evolution begins. Yet it is a continuation of the processes that already started, and yes you can scientifically class them separately, but life going from nothing to a trillion celled animal doesn't care, it just is.

Name the overlapping mechanism. Precisely what about the process affects both evolution AND abiogenesis. You can keep avoiding this question and dodging all points against your false claims, but you have no evidence whatsoever that your view on abiogenesis is accurate. What process are you referring to? We know that everything changes over time. That doesn't mean biological evolution is the same as abiogenesis. It's not and there are NO overlapping mechanisms. If you want to suggest this, you need evidence. Bottom line, you have posted zero.

Adaptation & mutation facets of evolution, would have happened within the abiogenesis development, it's really interesting that what people believe about evolution, they don't want to believe about abiogenesis, if you 100% believe in it so much why the idealogical difference, it's very strange.

Prove that mutation and adaptation are facets of abiogenesis. Sorry but just saying that over and over again doesn't make it true. Genetic mutations cannot happen without genes. Abiogenesis comes before genes existed. If you don't understand this very basic concept there will probably be no getting through to you.

a reply to: kennyb72

No offense, but your categories of scientists are silly. As others have said, in the real world, they aren't categorized like that and associating one "type" of scientist with drinking is an absurd generalization, just like each category you created. I was trying to get you to stop using generalizations to describe science, but you try to explain your position by doing it more. You can claim it's just for humor, but you don't present it as such, you present it as if it is factual or as if each scientist can be pigeonholed into that personality set. You did the same thing to atheism earlier in the thread.

Once again, scientists are not the issue and neither is science. The issue is corruption of people who make controlling decisions. This really boils down to government and corporate funded research, but even those people can't manipulate the experiments and results. You act like the evil people in control have this ability to force conclusions, but this isn't the way science works. Conclusions are reached by analyzing the experiment data, they aren't thought up ahead of time and then evidence is forced to fit the mantra. That is not how it works.

I do defend religious folk, I can’t stop myself. It is one thing I know for a fact that atheists don’t have that believers do and that is the very belief in God itself, and the comfort that brings to people.

Many folks find comfort in not believing in god as well. But you are defending religious folk that spread willful ignorance and lies to attack science and promote their belief system. I'm a big proponent of religious freedom as well. I don't believe in bashing religious folk, but when they spew BS, they need to be called out on it. Religion can help people and bring comfort, but that alone does not make any of it true, nor does it justify generalizing atheists or scientists, OR relating any of it to evolution. If you were just defending their right to religious freedom, I'd be okay with that, but you are defending them by going on the offensive against others and essentially defending intellectual dishonesty.

You can look at it as a crutch a false belief a delusion or whatever you would like to call it, but to a believer it is a precious gift and for some people the only thing that makes their lives bearable. I don’t think anybody has a right to take that away from them or try to convince them otherwise

This my be true, but in that same sense, they do not have a right to attack science based on personal faith. It's one thing to ask questions that are genuine, and generally want to understand how things work. It's a completely different ballgame to make ridiculous claims about evolution, and then deny the science when it is presented. People don't just come to this section to bash religious folks. It's the religious folks that come here to bash science, and when they are corrected they argue dishonestly based on flat out denial and dodging rather than using logic to address counter points or prove their position correct.

So you see an attack on evolution theory is generally a defence of someones foundation of life itself.

I don't agree with this, not even slightly. Attacking science is not a defense, it is blindly attacking what they do not even understand, and is not honest. They shouldn't need to defend their belief system, but if they do, then they should do it by talking about the positive points about it and how it helps others, rather than attacking something that has been logically proven in science based on hard evidence. I'm all about them being allowed to believe what they want, but one of the core principles of Christianity is empathy as taught by Jesus himself. Jesus didn't attack others. He wouldn't have spread lies to promote his philosophy. Love your enemy, the golden rule, not judging others, or hating people whom they disagree with. This is Christianity 101, yet the biblical literalists that attack it in here, do not follow these basic guidelines. It makes you wonder if they are even Christian and not atheist trolls trying to make them look bad.

So my atheist friends how about displaying the compassion and tolerance that you proclaim you have without having to believe in a God and demonstrate the milk of human kindness.

I am tolerant of all people from all walks of life. But I am NOT tolerant of the actions of those individuals who intentionally lie or promote lies to try to debate something they know nothing about. Leave the science to the scientists, and most of us would be happy to leave religion to the religious. Blindly attacking science doesn't justify faith. It only makes the rest of the world look at you funny and honestly is hurting the religions more than it helps. Intellectual dishonesty needs to be called out and the reason is self explanatory. This site is all about denying ignorance, so when folks do this they shouldn't be accused of bashing religion because they are defending science, and many times it is like arguing with a brick wall. How else can you deal with intellectual dishonesty? I generally go out of my way to call this behavior out, and i do for the benefit of the 3rd party reader that may not participate in the thread but is curious about what all of this means. I don't do it to convince creationists / ID advocates that they are wrong about their beliefs.

In summary, religious folks wouldn't be attacked, if they weren't constantly on the offense with no rational justification for any of their claims and attacks of science.